Explanation of the author's statement: "Hearing, Seeing, and Speaking"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : He says "Just, Hearing". It is required that he be hearing, or that his hearing be strong. The opposite of hearing is deafness. The opposite of hearing is the one who never hears, meaning if the loudest sound in the world were to occur next to his ear, he would not hear it. This person is not fit to be a judge. Why did they say this? Because he does not hear the words of the two litigants. If the two litigants spoke the loudest words with the strongest voices, he would not hear them. The apparent meaning of his statement is that it is not valid for him to be a judge, even if it were possible to convey the words of the litigants to him through writing or gestures. Because I knew a man who never heard anything; if a rifle were to go off next to his ear, he would not hear it. But he writes and understands gestures with great knowledge. He had a stone tablet... this stone on which he writes and erases, and with him a small stone tablet which he puts in his pocket. If he met you, he would gesture like this, meaning "Peace be upon you," then he would bring out the tablet and tell you, meaning if there was news or something. For this reason, he was among the most knowledgeable people about news, including news of states and others, because he was eager to receive news. Subhan Allah, he felt that if he did not do this, he would not know anything. So you would find that if he met anyone, he would greet him, take out this pocket, and start writing. So he had a lot of knowledge. Now, the words of the jurists imply that the deaf person is not valid to be a judge, even if he understands the words of the litigants through gestures or writing. As for gestures, they said that if he understands through gestures, the litigant may not be good at gesturing. The litigant may not be good at gesturing. He may gesture with something that the judge imagines to be something else. Yes, perhaps he gestures like this, and the judge thinks that his opponent hit him with his trunk, while he meant five. Meaning, gestures differ. In any case, we say that gestures are of no use. But writing, writing with letters, is clear and readable. The litigant writes, then it is presented to the judge, then he asks the defendant, for example, to defend himself or confess, and he writes that. Is this possible or not? We say this is possible. So if the cause for appointing the deaf person as a judge is the inability to hear the two litigants, then we say if it is possible for the claim of the two litigants to reach this judge by any means, the cause is removed. Is the cause removed? The cause is removed for the cause. And if the cause is removed, the ruling is removed.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He writes it; he has someone who writes, the interpreter. Now he says "Seeing". Seeing means strong sight. Seeing means not being blind. So the blind person is not valid to be a judge. Why? He said because he does not know the plaintiff from the defendant. He does not know the plaintiff from the defendant. So perhaps one of them speaks imitating the other, imitating the other, and he thinks that it is that imitator. Is that so or not? Because he does not distinguish things except by voice, and the voice can be imitated. It is possible. The plaintiff may say, "I claim ten thousand riyals from so-and-so, son of so-and-so." The judge says, "What do you say?" The defendant imitates the voice of the plaintiff and says, "Yes, I owe him ten thousand riyals." So based on that, he rules. He says that he does not know the plaintiff from the defendant, and the voices become confused for him. So perhaps he rules in favor of one who has no right because of that. But this reasoning is defective in reality, because we observe that the blind person perceives more with his auditory sense than the sighted person perceives with his auditory sense. He has a strong perception with the sense of hearing and knows voices. As for knowing who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant, this is achieved for everyone. The plaintiff is the one who remains silent if left alone, and the defendant is the one who does not remain silent if left alone. So the correct view is that it is not required that he be seeing, and that the blind person is valid to be a judge. It is true that the sighted person is more complete, but making it a condition such that if we do not find anyone but a blind person, we do not appoint him, this is not correct. He says "Speaking". Speaking with what? Because if the mute person is a judge, how does he speak to the litigants? He says no, he must speak. He must speak because the matter requires a clear, understandable statement. Gestures may be understandable and may not be understandable. Now, if he writes, if he writes, then the obstacle is removed in reality, because writing expresses what is in the heart just as the tongue expresses what is in the heart. So if he is able to write, there is no doubt that it is permissible for him to be a judge. It is true that speaking is faster than writing, but if we find this man qualified for the judiciary and the only thing remaining for him is speaking, we cannot prevent him from the judiciary just because he does not speak. We say he writes and gestures, and the person who is constantly with him knows his gestures just as he knows his speech with his tongue. And this is something observed, because we know that with the mute person, if there is someone around him from his children, or father, or wife, or mother, you find they know from his gestures just as they know from his speech exactly. And the mute person sometimes gestures with his hand and sometimes gestures with his lips. And we have seen some mute people gesture with their lips to their father, and the father knows what he wants. He knows what he wants. He gestures, and when his father goes and brings water, and you do not know what he is saying, but he gestured with his lips, reminding him. He gestures. So when his father gets up and brings the incense burner, how? By his gesture. So the one who knows the gesture, if he is next to the judge, is like an interpreter for him, is that not so? So the interpreter translates the phrase, and this one translates the gesture. There is no difference. If the speaker, we say that the condition of the judge being a speaker is subject to consideration, and that it is permissible to appoint the mute person on the condition that his gesture is known or his writing is readable. If this or that is achieved, it is valid for him to be a judge.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He writes it; he has someone who writes, the interpreter. Now he says "Seeing". Seeing means strong sight. Seeing means not being blind. So the blind person is not valid to be a judge. Why? He said because he does not know the plaintiff from the defendant. He does not know the plaintiff from the defendant. So perhaps one of them speaks imitating the other, imitating the other, and he thinks that it is that imitator. Is that so or not? Because he does not distinguish things except by voice, and the voice can be imitated. It is possible. The plaintiff may say, "I claim ten thousand riyals from so-and-so, son of so-and-so." The judge says, "What do you say?" The defendant imitates the voice of the plaintiff and says, "Yes, I owe him ten thousand riyals." So based on that, he rules. He says that he does not know the plaintiff from the defendant, and the voices become confused for him. So perhaps he rules in favor of one who has no right because of that. But this reasoning is defective in reality, because we observe that the blind person perceives more with his auditory sense than the sighted person perceives with his auditory sense. He has a strong perception with the sense of hearing and knows voices. As for knowing who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant, this is achieved for everyone. The plaintiff is the one who remains silent if left alone, and the defendant is the one who does not remain silent if left alone. So the correct view is that it is not required that he be seeing, and that the blind person is valid to be a judge. It is true that the sighted person is more complete, but making it a condition such that if we do not find anyone but a blind person, we do not appoint him, this is not correct. He says "Speaking". Speaking with what? Because if the mute person is a judge, how does he speak to the litigants? He says no, he must speak. He must speak because the matter requires a clear, understandable statement. Gestures may be understandable and may not be understandable. Now, if he writes, if he writes, then the obstacle is removed in reality, because writing expresses what is in the heart just as the tongue expresses what is in the heart. So if he is able to write, there is no doubt that it is permissible for him to be a judge. It is true that speaking is faster than writing, but if we find this man qualified for the judiciary and the only thing remaining for him is speaking, we cannot prevent him from the judiciary just because he does not speak. We say he writes and gestures, and the person who is constantly with him knows his gestures just as he knows his speech with his tongue. And this is something observed, because we know that with the mute person, if there is someone around him from his children, or father, or wife, or mother, you find they know from his gestures just as they know from his speech exactly. And the mute person sometimes gestures with his hand and sometimes gestures with his lips. And we have seen some mute people gesture with their lips to their father, and the father knows what he wants. He knows what he wants. He gestures, and when his father goes and brings water, and you do not know what he is saying, but he gestured with his lips, reminding him. He gestures. So when his father gets up and brings the incense burner, how? By his gesture. So the one who knows the gesture, if he is next to the judge, is like an interpreter for him, is that not so? So the interpreter translates the phrase, and this one translates the gesture. There is no difference. If the speaker, we say that the condition of the judge being a speaker is subject to consideration, and that it is permissible to appoint the mute person on the condition that his gesture is known or his writing is readable. If this or that is achieved, it is valid for him to be a judge.